- 5,619
- Hampshire
- Spurgy777
Hopefully people listen to him, and spend the money on nuclear fusion research instead 
Yes please so people like me can have a bigger job pool (not even trying to be unbiased lol)Hopefully people listen to him, and spend the money on nuclear fusion research instead![]()
They already have the facts, but still believe otherwise.
It sounds as though you think that what the facts say cannot be disputed.
You are right. I should not have used the word "facts". That was a mistake, for which I apologize.
I should have used something like "the reasons why scientific opinion gives it a 95% probability that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels."
As for disputing that majority opinion, of course that's a fine thing to do, especially if the person disputing it has both the skills and evidence required.
I have neither, so I'm going with the 95% number.
Read about that a week or two ago, but without more concrete information, there's nothing much to say.
While the Lockheed Skunkworks has produced some incredible things over the past few decades, five years for a prototype is a long time to wait.
As they say in the article; "Nuclear fusion is 30 years away... and always will be". It seems that they do have a good idea about magneto-containment, if they crack that then it'll be (another) important development. I'm a little skeptical though![]()
Someday we may crack it... or we may never crack it... either way... we'll know more as Lockheed comes closer to completing their prototype and they start trickling out more concrete information.
Investors. Science isn't cheap.What I'm not sure about is the purpose of Lockheed's publicity on this. Development of a truck-bearable fusion reactor would be of enormous military value alone, it doesn't quite make sense to me that they'd be so open. The only explanation I can think of is that they're trying to attract more experts in that field by presenting a viable research program, but issuing a short paper of viable findings would presumably be enough to do that in an interested community.
Investors. Science isn't cheap.
I doubt that budget is unlimited, really... but the Skunkworks name and the allure of cheap fusion is going to be a sure draw for big money for the company.
Today here in Australia we are experiencing an extremely hot day that will probably prove to be one of the hottest ever recorded for November. The left will all nod and finger point declaring it to be definitive proof, whilst people like me will be left thinking that a record of figures that only spans about 100 years isn't telling you much at all. But if there is a warming & it's natural, not man made, then a mini ice age may follow, does anyone else agree that this would be a bigger problem?
First of all, weather and global warming are completely different, weather is the temporary composition of a regional atmosphere at one time, climate is a regional condition overtime.
Second of all, our records span longer than 100 years. Records have been recorded for about 150 years by humans, but before that, we know other things have recorded conditions, there are trees in the world that are 3000 years old, and their are fossils of trees even older, we can compare the molecules in the inner rings to find out what the composition of the atmophere was like at that time, and if the inside of dead trees is not good enough of information, we have also drilled ice, we know how long it takes layers of ice to build at our north and south poles, so we have a teams there, that drill the ice and measure the amounts of gases tapped in the ice, and a funny thing happens, the atmosphere found in the inside of dead trees is the same as what we find in the layers of ice.
Some of the deeper drilling (quarter of a mile perhaps) can take samples from millions of years ago, we can also do this to rocks, but ice is easier to drill. What we have found is that for millions of years, the amounts of certain gases (most commonly known gas is CO2) decrease in the atmosphere over time; until, the 19th century. (When machines were starting to be manufactured.) And they have exponentially increased over time, and the charts of the increase and human activity is exactly the same.
You mention "mini ice ages", We know where these ice ages come from, asteroid impacts; the correlations between iceages and craters are astoundingly similar. The Gulf of Mexico in the US, is theorized to be the crater of the asteroid that killed 97% of life on Earth (The dinosaurs) 65 million years ago. There are smaller craters since then, there a crater in the Pacific Ocean that's theorized to have started the big ice age 2.5 million years ago.
Also Veritasium, a science video youtuber who has a PH.D Has some very interesting videos about climate change, as well as the institute of Hawaii, who's numbers are kind of scary; they say that many of the people alive today will begin the migration towards the poles. Hawaii says that beginning in 2020 the climate regions of the Equator will change, then in the 2030s you have Mexico And Southern India; by 2050 the majority of the current human population will be in a new region, and by 2100, the entire world will have a new climate.
Here's the awesome videos by Veritasium:
...
Here's the awesome videos by Veritasium....
Plus I knew the Commies didn't just disappear when the USSR crapped out.
Nice to see his graphs have not been manipulated /sarc
Here an awesome global warming propoganda video just like the ones you posted:
Here is an awesome video explaining the Global Warming swindle:
Why not skip the "propaganda" and go to the facts?
97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is a result of human activity. But what do they know, they've probably been infiltrated by communists who put the best part of a decade into getting a PhD.![]()
.....97% ...